Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Larry the Leit

Murderer should be shown leniency says a posh bloke that's never met him.

111 posts in this topic

I'm paying.

And I don't want to. We will come out of Afghanistan without having solved anything, without improving the lot of the inhabitants and with a lot of British families bearing the cost in heartbreak for years to come.

When our forces volunteered to join up they signed to put themselves in harms way. Too often it is the families that were left at home that pay the cost.

We have changed a lot in Afghanistan, some choose not to see it. Understandable why.

 

But don't write off what has been done and achieved because of your own prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you feel that this answers my question?

Talk normal not like it's a class room full of Philosophy student's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have changed a lot in Afghanistan, some choose not to see it. Understandable why.

 

But don't write off what has been done and achieved because of your own prejudice.

It will be like a bucket of water -when we take our hands out there won't be one iota of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vengeance isn't the job of the army.  It's there to enforce the political will of the government.  As it stands, we are signed up to many different military conventions that expressly prohibit conduct like this and it was rightly tried as murder.  It's utterly irrelevant what our enemies or opponents do as long as we obey our own laws.  Murder is murder regardless of who's on either end of the gun.

 

Also, discipline is what saves lives.  An idiot with a gun is an utter liability who doesn't deserve to wear a uniform.

 

Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was the other way round do you think the Taliban fighter's would been more lenient ?

Do you think we need to show higher standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so ridiculous ALL murderers deserve a life sentence. Nobody has said otherwise except in your reactionary head.

Yeah,reactionary,whatever.male genitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk normal not like it's a class room full of Philosophy student's.

you object when people pull you up about the way you express yourself  yet you say this. I suggest you look hypocrite up.

 

I doubt whether you have a clue what a classroom full of philosphy students even remotely resembles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We" aren't doing anything,the nations armed forces are,at the order of our government.

 

He wasn't told to do what he did by the Govt, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't told to do what he did by the Govt, though. 

You know,what,I really don't care anymore.Go ahead and be all bleeding heart for the death of a terrorist.Whinge and moan about poppies.I'm tired of people being offended on behalf of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post is a gross distortion and mis-representation of the position.

 

This once great nation has become even greater . It has become civilised.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post is a gross distortion and mis-representation of the position.

 

This once great nation has become even greater . It has become civilised.  

In your view,maybe,try talking to friends and family of troops that have died at the the hands of these people,that may alter your view.I doubt it very much though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick to the point. Here we have a guy who with malice aforethought  killed someone and admitted that he broke the Geneva convention. He's been tried and convicted in accordance with due process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick to the point. Here we have a guy who with malice aforethought  killed someone and admitted that he broke the Geneva convention. He's been tried and convicted in accordance with due process. 

yes he has.And please don't patronise me.Am I not allowed to express my views on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes he has.And please don't patronise me.Am I not allowed to express my views on this?

I welcome your views. I'm not sure that the point that you are making is relevant though. These men and women have chosen to fight when required for a living, and that doesn't exclude them from following appropriate rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will this ruling make other soldier hesitate before killing someone. they may think they could get done for murder! I personally do not care that a Taliban soldier was killed. if he had died from the helicopter attack it would be ok, but because a soldier had to finish the job it was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will this ruling make other soldier hesitate before killing someone. they may think they could get done for murder! I personally do not care that a Taliban soldier was killed. if he had died from the helicopter attack it would be ok, but because a soldier had to finish the job it was wrong.

 

Do you think it was wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm getting sick to the back teeth of the deification of soldiers in difficult situations and the calls for us to "understand" this murderer.  He's a convicted murderer.  No hand-wringing about how difficult he must have had it changes a single bit of that.

 

Soldiers these days are the most looked after, well equipped, highly trained professionals that the UK has ever fielded in a combat situation.  This crime of murder is a one in an army crime that does nothing but bring disgrace to the armed forces, lowering the outstanding reputation of the British Army worldwide.  I think back to the first gulf war when Iraqi soldiers would go out of their way to surrender to British troops rather than US troops because our reputation for fairness was unimpeachable unlike that of the Americans.  I remember seeing one US senior officer joking with a British one about how he hoped the Brits had enough food to feed the entire Iraqi army that seemed to be lining up to surrender to them.  We hold an enviable moral ascendancy (phrase blatantly stolen from Gen Houghton's position on this case) over our enemies and, if anything, should treat anything that threatens that moral ascendancy more harshly than normal, not more leniently.

 

There's a very good reason why the armed forces are under a far stricter set of legal restrictions than civilians, they must not only be held to the highest standards, they must be seen to be held to the highest standards.  This is why those subject to military law if convicted of a civilian crime are the only people under British law who can be convicted twice of the same crime, once for the offence and once more for bringing the armed forces into disrepute.

 

Those who don't want to meet those high standards always have the option of walking away.  If they feel they're getting ill because of stress then the current army psychiatric care is better than it ever has been and is whole worlds of difference apart from even the 1980s.  If they simply feel like a modern day Rambo out for vengeance then can I suggest they leave the army and join one of the mercenary groups that are always advertising.

 

For those who think there's no difference between this crime and a sniper firing at someone from half a mile away, there is.  The former was an incapacitated enemy combatant covered under many, many treaties, laws and conventions, the latter is an accepted and legal tactic of war.  It's the same as a forward observer calling in an airstrike or artillery strike on an armed position, if it's a standard camp full of soldiers then that's fine but put a red cross or red crescent on that exact same camp it and it's instantly a war crime.  It's one of these things that's counter-intuitive on first view but the international community drew a line in the sand over conduct and that's one that we should abide by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lost good friends in Afghanistan.At the hands of Taliban disguised as policemen,I don't recall people on here calling for them to be given life sentences.So good for you,you survived,my friends didn't.Maybe now you can understand why i think this is utter garbage. 

 

 

My son was blown up in Afghanistan and lost part of his foot, he still suffers from the mental trauma. This marine let my son, his colleagues and the general population down.

 

If the taliban are ignorant barbarians does that mean that British troops have to act in the same way?

 

There is a reason the Geneva convention was drafted, it was to deal with these exact situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son was blown up in Afghanistan and lost part of his foot, he still suffers from the mental trauma. This marine let my son, his colleagues and the general population down.

 

If the taliban are ignorant barbarians does that mean that British troops have to act in the same way?

 

There is a reason the Geneva convention was drafted, it was to deal with these exact situations.

No, it wasn't. It was written to minimise the consequences of wars between nations where both sides wear uniforms and follow the code. In this war, one side follows the code and punishes lapses and the other side has no interest in the code.

Arguably the code doesn't even apply to NATO forces as it is intended to apply when there are wars between countries that have both signed up, not where one side has signed up and the other has not.

I don't think it is right to have shot the Taliban but International law is more grey than you are suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic, wartime rights of prisoners (civil and military); established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.  

 

I believe this situation was covered by the above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't. It was written to minimise the consequences of wars between nations where both sides wear uniforms and follow the code. In this war, one side follows the code and punishes lapses and the other side has no interest in the code.Arguably the code doesn't even apply to NATO forces as it is intended to apply when there are wars between countries that have both signed up, not where one side has signed up and the other has not.I don't think it is right to have shot the Taliban but International law is more grey than you are suggesting.

I think it still applies if one of the sides has signed up, however, if the Taliban fighter is classed as a terrorist or guerrilla fighter then the privelages of being a POW do not have to be observed. did he have a uniform on? did he belong to a particular unit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't. It was written to minimise the consequences of wars between nations where both sides wear uniforms and follow the code. In this war, one side follows the code and punishes lapses and the other side has no interest in the code.

Arguably the code doesn't even apply to NATO forces as it is intended to apply when there are wars between countries that have both signed up, not where one side has signed up and the other has not.

I don't think it is right to have shot the Taliban but International law is more grey than you are suggesting.

Just because one side doesn't sign up to a treaty doesn't mean that the other won't be prosecuted for crimes against those conventions or even against far more vague "customs".  The one that jumps immediately to mind is the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, one of the indictments against him was for breaching the Geneva Conventions, another was for breaching the customs of war and the last was for crimes against humanity.  There doesn't even need to be a formal legal treaty for the international community to act against either states or individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017